4 ms·

The absence of the TrueCrypt license on the OSI-certified list itself does not signify much, since the license was AFAIK never submitted for OSI approval, but L

The absence of the TrueCrypt license on the OSI-certified list itself does not signify much, since the license was AFAIK never submitted for OSI approval, but Linux distros among others have raised concerns about several versions of the license in the past, and the current one continues to be problematic IMO. Some recent discussion has been going on on the OSI license-discuss mailing list for those interested: see http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-October/001293.html http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/201... and followup messages. (Disclaimer: am an OSI director and also am Red Hat lawyer who was involved in reviewing and rejecting the TrueCrypt license for Fedora.)

nodata 13y ago
Thanks for the info, there's a lot of old information around. The Wikipedia page seems to indicate you (as Red Hat) have no further objections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Licensing_and_Open_Source_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Licensing_and_Open_S... - I guess this is wrong. and the OSI minutes page seems to indicate the TrueCrypt license was going to be rejected (maybe I'm misreading this): http://opensource.org/minutes20061213 http://opensource.org/minutes20061213 - but this is from 2006.
- richardfontana 13y ago
  The assertion that TrueCrypt "has now managed to fix all the problems cited by Red Hat Legal (relayed by Tom Callaway)" is false (I'm not Tom Callaway but I am confident he would agree with me on this). The points I mention in the license-discuss posting yesterday http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-October/001313.html http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/201... were applicable (as far as I can remember) to earlier versions we looked at and as to which we raised concerns to TrueCrypt. As I noted in that posting, TrueCrypt did change some things in response to the barrage of criticism, but not enough.

nodata 13y ago

Thanks for the info, there's a lot of old information around. The Wikipedia page seems to indicate you (as Red Hat) have no further objections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Licensing_and_Open_Source_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueCrypt#Licensing_and_Open_S... - I guess this is wrong. and the OSI minutes page seems to indicate the TrueCrypt license was going to be rejected (maybe I'm misreading this): http://opensource.org/minutes20061213 http://opensource.org/minutes20061213 - but this is from 2006.

richardfontana 13y ago
The assertion that TrueCrypt "has now managed to fix all the problems cited by Red Hat Legal (relayed by Tom Callaway)" is false (I'm not Tom Callaway but I am confident he would agree with me on this). The points I mention in the license-discuss posting yesterday http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-October/001313.html http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/201... were applicable (as far as I can remember) to earlier versions we looked at and as to which we raised concerns to TrueCrypt. As I noted in that posting, TrueCrypt did change some things in response to the barrage of criticism, but not enough.